The owner of an apartment where three Egyptian men have claimed they were violently assaulted by people demanding they vacate the premises has denied having anything to do with the assault.
At the High Court on Friday, lawyers for Mr Xia Ping He said he accepted that he owns the property at Tyrconnell Road, Inchicore, Dublin 8, but claims he let it to another party, named in court as a Mr Tony Tan or Tony Lee.
Mr Tan/Lee, it is claimed, then sublet it to the three plaintiffs, Mr Xia Ping He’s counsel, Padraic O’Neill BL, told Mr Justice Mark Sanfey.
Counsel said his client was “a stranger” to the alleged attack, and that Mr Xia Ping He did not manage the apartment, which is located above a takeaway operated by the defendant.
In proceedings brought in late December, the three men say they were badly injured were subjected to a prolonged assault by up to 20 men, who “broke wooden chairs” on their bodies and damaged their possessions.
They claim their apartment was left looking like “a war zone”.
The sole purpose of the attack, the three men claim, was to get them to immediately vacate the property they have rented for more than a year.
Arising out of the incident the three – Mostafa Elsayed Morshedy Elsayed Faraag, Gomaa Rashed Ahmed Arafa and Hussein Mohamed Hussein Mahmoud – secured a High Court injunction against the owner of the apartment, Mr Xia Ping He.
The three obtained an order restraining Mr Xia Ping He and any other person who has notice of the order from assaulting threatening violence or intimidating them.
The order also prevents the defendant and any other party from trespassing at or damaging the plaintiffs’ property at the apartment.
David O’Brien BL, instructed by solicitor Ali Nezem for the plaintiffs, told Mr Justice Sanfey that discussions had taken place between the parties, resulting in some progress.
However, counsel said his side remained concerned about some of the information furnished on the defendant’s behalf, including matters about Mr Han/Lee, whose address was given as Sackville Place in Dublin 5, and his relationship with the defendant.
No affidavit in reply to his client’s claims has been sworn by the defendant, but it was accepted that one would be sworn in the next few days, counsel added.
Counsel said the matter could be adjourned to allow Mr Xia Ping He to provide the affidavit and, arising out of that, his clients may seek to add Mr Han/Lee as a defendant to the proceedings. Counsel said there had been no repeat of the attack.
In reply, Mr O’Neill, for Mr Xia Ping He, said his client had nothing to do with the management of the property, which he says was let to Mr Han/Lee. His client had nothing to do with the alleged attack on the plaintiffs, a video of which had been published by the media, he said.
There had been widespread coverage of the matter, which had caused his client difficulty with a financial institution in an unrelated separate matter, counsel said.
Mr O’Neill said the defendant met the plaintiffs after the alleged assaults and offered to help them out and that his client was prepared to swear an affidavit in response to the claims.
Counsel added that it did not appear from the footage that as many people were involved in the alleged attack on the plaintiffs as claimed and reminded the court that there were two sides to every story.
The court further heard that Mr Tan/Lee had been asked to attend Friday’s hearing, but had refused to do so, and would only attend if ordered to by the court.
In their action the three plaintiffs claim that in October 2021 they entered into a tenancy arrangement for the apartment. The agreement was for one year with an option to extend, they say. They paid the rent, in cash, to a person called “Manu”, the court also heard.
On the night of December 13th last year, the plaintiffs said they were shocked when men forcibly entered their apartment and demanded that the three plaintiffs vacate the apartment. This was their sole purpose of their visit, the plaintiffs allege. It is claimed that the group threatened to come back if they did not vacate the premises.
The tenants understood from the rental agreement that they were entitled to 30 days’ notice of the termination of that arrangement. No such notice was given, they claim.
Mr Justice Sanfey noted that Mr Xia Ping He would furnish a sworn statement in the proceedings over the coming days. He adjourned the case to a date later this month, with the injunction remaining in place.